and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Show Tags

14 Sep 2005, 16:47

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0%(00:00) correct
0%(00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.

Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?

(A) The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.
(B) The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
(C) If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
(D)The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
(E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Show Tags

15 Sep 2005, 15:19

E!
Once in the statement, nominees have been differentiated from prospective nominees. So, the term "nominees" means actual nominees. My logic below:
The first person to file a nomination will be told there are no other nominees. But if a second person wants to file, the first person would have been given wrong information.
Anybody get what I'm saying?